Kerala

Idukki

CC/180/2023

Ancy Peater - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shrutesh Sunil Gandhi - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 5.10.2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  19^th  day of  September,   2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.180/2023

     Between

Complainant  :     Ancy Peter,

Mattathil House,

Mankulam P.O.,

 Idukki.

        And

Opposite Party  :        Shrutesh Sunil Gandhi,

Halcyon Distributors / Deals of the day,

GSTIN – 27AMHPG922IEIZ8,

Gangadhar Chamber,

5-B, 2^nd Floor, 314 Narayn Peth,

Pune, Maharashtra – 411004.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed in person by complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Case of complainant is briefly narrated hereunder :

 

Complainant had purchased a mobile phone, namely, Redmi Note 75 Black, ordered through Flipkart, sold by the opposite party dealer for Rs.12,539/-, on 17.9.2023. She had received the phone on 20.9.2023. Upon perusal, phone looked likea new, unused one. However, after 2 days, certain software issues surfaced and hence complainant had taken the phone to a nearby authorized service centre. After examination, service personnel had informed her that the phone was earlier serviced in 2019. When its IMEI number was checked, a message ‘does not exist in the order system’ was displayed. As advised by service personnel, complainant had lodged a complaint on 25.9.2023 with Flipkart, which was the online platform through which she had purchased the phone. On 5 th day of the complaint, complainant had received a message that replacement time was over. Hence she had complained 5 times through National Consumer helpline. Unfortunately, she had received the same message. Customer care number, when contacted has given a reply that nothing can be done.

 

 

Though software issue was resolved, complainant feels cheated by opposite parties since

she was given an old used phone instead of a brand new one.   Complainant submits that

she is engaged in the business of selling wearing apparels used for religious ceremonies

of  Christians, under the name of her concern,  Alphonsa  Designs.   She  is  receiving /

booking orders completely online through whatsapp. That the phone was purchased only for this purpose. Complainant submits that this Commission should intervene and direct the opposite parties to replace the old phone with new one and compensate her by paying Rs.78000/-.

 

2. Complaint was taken on file and notice was issued to opposite parties. Despite service of notice, opposite party has not appeared. Therefore, case was posted for complainant’s evidence. Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainant had not appeared and given evidence. Hence we had taken the case for orders. Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2) Whether there was sale of an old product instead of a new one ?

3) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

4) Final order and costs ?

 

3. Point No.1 :

 

It is mentioned in the complaint itself that the complainant had purchased the phone only for her business. She has pleaded that she is taking online orders through whatsapp for her cloth business. That the sale is 100% online. That the phone was meant for use for this business alone. She has no case that business was her means of self employment for earning her livelihood. She has no case either that the phone is meant for her personal use. Purchase of phone was purely for business purpose. That being so, complainant cannot be given the benefit of explanation to Section 2(7). For the very same reason, she cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under Section 2(7)(1) of the Act. Therefore, her complaint cannot be entertained before this Commission. Complaint is not maintainable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

4. Point Nos.2 and 3 are considered together :

 

These points do not raise for consideration in view of our findings on Point No.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Point No.4 :

 

In the result, this complaint is rejected. Complainant is at liberty to seek her remedies before a competent Civil Court in accordance with law. She shall take back extra copies submitted along with complaint.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 19^th  day of September, 2024

 

      Sd/-

          SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

        SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

                  Forwarded by Order,

 

 

              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR